Should a description for a `conformance` class be compulsory?

[sadielbartholomew]

For the conformance activity class, there is a description property which is currently set to be compulsory:

https://github.com/ES-DOC/esdoc-cim-v2-schema/blob/1ba7e90a43a00a878c501d5b8e880b30bf6d80a7/activity_classes.py#L179

In discussion with @davidhassell, we agreed we think it should instead be optional (i.e. 0.1 cardinality) because when the appropriate value for "conformance_achieved" (an activity.conformance_type) is "Conformed", it will often be the case that this value alone is sufficient, with nothing to say by way of further description (some further description may be desirable in some cases for a simulation marked as conforming to the requirements, and should be included always for any other conformance value e.g. "Not Conformed", but certainly it is superfluous for at least some cases).

@bnlawrence what do you think?

[davidhassell]

Thanks, Sadie - looks good to me.

[bnlawrence]

I think the cardinality went to 1 when we removed a controlled vocab which would have said something like "conformed in model code ... conformed by dataset ... conformed by parameter" ... and it should be compulsory for partial conformance. Meanwhile, I agree, the simplest is to make it 0.1 for now.

[sadielbartholomew]

Thanks @bnlawrence for the context and for sharing your opinion. And thanks also @davidhassell for your confirmation that I captured our thinking correctly.

Unless anyone has a final objection, I will quickly check that @greensladem is happy and if so, go ahead and make the change, then.

[davidhassell]

Great. Thanks, Sadie and Bryan.